ReviewClinical trials (London, England)2020
A review of available software for adaptive clinical trial design.
Review in Clinical trials (London, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Confidence Intervals for Adaptive Trial Designs I: A Methodological Review.Statistics in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Prevalence and predictors of data and code sharing in the medical and health sciences: systematic review with meta-analysis of individual participant data.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Pooled it
- Systematic review of available software for multi-arm multi-stage and platform clinical trial design.Trials · 2021Pooled it
- Bayesian group sequential designs for phase III emergency medicine trials: a case study using the PARAMEDIC2 trial.Trials · 2020Trial
- Trial
- Building and Sustaining Open-Source Medical Device Projects.IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2025Review
- A practical guide to simulation for an adaptive trial design with a single interim analysis.Trials · 2025Article
- Why and how should we simulate platform trials? Learnings from EU-PEARL.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Adaptive Trials in Stroke: Current Use and Future Directions.Neurology · 2024Review
- The performance of a Bayesian value-based sequential clinical trial design in the presence of an equivocal cost-effectiveness signal: evidence from the HERO trial.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Comparison of Pocock and Simon's covariate-adaptive randomization procedures in clinical trials.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Point estimation for adaptive trial designs II: Practical considerations and guidance.Statistics in medicine · 2023Review
- Point estimation for adaptive trial designs I: A methodological review.Statistics in medicine · 2023Review
- How often do cancer researchers make their data and code available and what factors are associated with sharing?BMC medicine · 2022Article
- Cost-effective clinical trial design: Application of a Bayesian sequential model to the ProFHER pragmatic trial.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2021Article
- Exact sequential test for clinical trials and post-market drug and vaccine safety surveillance with Poisson and binary data.Statistics in medicine · 2021Article
- A Fast, Flexible Simulation Framework for Bayesian Adaptive Designs-The R Package BATSS.Pharmaceutical statisticsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsThe increasing cost of the drug development process has seen interest in the use of adaptive trial designs grow substantially. Accordingly, much research has been conducted to identify barriers to increasing the use of adaptive designs in practice. Several articles have argued that the availability of user-friendly software will be an important step in making adaptive designs easier to implement. Therefore, we present a review of the current state of software availability for adaptive trial design.
methodsWe review articles from 31 journals published in 2013-2017 that relate to methodology for adaptive trials to assess how often code and software for implementing novel adaptive designs is made available at the time of publication. We contrast our findings against these journals' policies on code distribution. We also search popular code repositories, such as Comprehensive R Archive Network and GitHub, to identify further existing user-contributed software for adaptive designs. From this, we are able to direct interested parties toward solutions for their problem of interest.
resultsOnly 30% of included articles made their code available in some form. In many instances, articles published in journals that had mandatory requirements on code provision still did not make code available. There are several areas in which available software is currently limited or saturated. In particular, many packages are available to address group sequential design, but comparatively little code is present in the public domain to determine biomarker-guided adaptive designs.
conclusionsThere is much room for improvement in the provision of software alongside adaptive design publications. In addition, while progress has been made, well-established software for various types of trial adaptation remains sparsely available.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.